11/30/2017 Gmail - FOIL Luke Stoddard Nathan  FOIL  FOIL  To: "luke.s.nathan@gmail.com"  Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:41 PM Mr. Nathan,   I am responding to your September 27, 2017 FOIL request for all correspondence and text messages sent or received by Kristina M. Johnson and Christine W. Fitzgibbons pertaining to the SUNY Impact Foundation and/or the “SUNY Strong” Fund commencing on August 15, 2017 up to the date the request is processed, in this case September 28, 2017.   I have produced herewith responsive records, or portions thereof, which are not exempt from disclosure under FOIL.    Please note that certain records have been redacted, or not produced at all, on the basis of the following exemptions of the Public Officers Law:   87(2)(a):  specifically exempted by state law (in this case, the attorney/client privilege pursuant to CPLR 4503); 87(2)(b):  information which, if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 87(2)(d): trade secrets (specifically the names of donors or potential donors); 87(2)(g): intra and inter-agency materials which do not constitute final agency action, instructions to staff which affect the public, or statistical or factual tabulations or data.   If you wish to appeal this decision, you may do so by sending a FOIL appeal letter within thirty (30) days to:   Kellie Dupuis SUNY FOIL Appeals Officer State Univeristy Plaza Albany, NY 12246   Sincerely, Casey Vattimo SUNY Records Access Officer   https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0258276ce1&jsver=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&msg=15f7d9c378f3b3ad&q=trade%20secrets&search=query&siml=1… 1/3 11/30/2017 Gmail - FOIL       From: FOIL Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:49 PM To: Luke Stoddard Nathan Subject: RE: FOIL   Mr. Nathan ,   This is to acknowledge receipt of your FOIL request to the State University of New York.    We are in the process of reviewing your correspondence and will be back to you within 20 business days regarding our response.   Thank you.    Sincerely,   Casey Vattimo Records Access Officer     From: Luke Stoddard Nathan [mailto:luke.s.nathan@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 10:53 AM To: FOIL Subject: FOIL   Dear Records Access Officer, Please email me the following records if possible:  (a) all correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Kristina M. Johnson from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc., including the foundation's "SUNY Strong" fund. (b) all correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Christine W. Fitzgibbons from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc., including the foundation's "SUNY Strong" fund. Please also note that statistical or factual tabulations or data; instructions to staff that affect the public; and final agency policy or determinations cannot be withheld from the public under Section 87(2)(g) of Public Officers Law, Article 6. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0258276ce1&jsver=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&msg=15f7d9c378f3b3ad&q=trade%20secrets&search=query&siml=1… 2/3 11/30/2017 Gmail - FOIL (2) If the requested Records cannot be emailed to me, please inform me by email of the portions that can be emailed and advise me of the cost for reproducing the remainder of the Records requested ($0.25 per page or actual cost of reproduction).   (3) If the requested Records cannot be emailed to me due to the volume of Records identified in the response to my request, please advise me of the actual cost of copying all Records onto a CD or floppy disk.   (4) ****If my request is too broad or does not adequately describe the Records, please contact me so that I may clarify my request, and when appropriate inform me of the manner in which Records are filed, retrieved or generated.******   If for any reason any portion of my request is denied, please inform me of the reasons for the denial in writing and provide the name, address and email address of the person or body to whom an appeal should be directed.   Please do not incur any costs without prior approval. I am a journalist seeking to make these records available to the general public and am not seeking these records for fundraising or commercial purposes.  Sincerely,   Luke Stoddard Nathan  The Alt c/o Proctors Theater  432 State St  Schenectady, NY 12305  518­382­3884 ext. 604 LSN­SUNYStrongFOIL_Redacted.pdf  3244K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0258276ce1&jsver=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&msg=15f7d9c378f3b3ad&q=trade%20secrets&search=query&siml=1… 3/3 11/29/2017 Gmail - FOIL Appeal Luke Stoddard Nathan  FOIL Appeal  1 message Luke Stoddard Nathan  To: "Dupuis, Kellie"  Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:13 PM Dear Ms. Dupuis,  I write to formally Appeal the denial of access regarding my Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request, initially submitted via email to Records Access Officer ("RAO") Casey Vattimo of SUNY Systems on September 27, 2017. The records denied include:   (a) all correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Kristina M. Johnson from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc., including the foundation's "SUNY Strong" fund.  (b) all correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Christine W. Fitzgibbons from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc., including the foundation's "SUNY Strong" fund. On November 2, 2017, the RAO provided 38 pages of responsive documents. "Please note," the RAO wrote, "that certain records have been redacted, or not produced at all, on the basis" of four FOIL exemptions:  87(2)(a):  specifically exempted by state law (in this case, the attorney/client privilege pursuant to CPLR 4503); 87(2)(b):  information which, if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 87(2)(d): trade secrets (specifically the names of donors or potential donors); 87(2)(g): intra and inter­agency materials which do not constitute final agency action, instructions to staff which affect the public, or statistical or factual tabulations or data. At the outset, I note that, according to the Committee on Open Government ("COG"), FOIL is "based on a presumption of access and [requires] that agency records be disclosed, unless an exception to rights of access enables an agency to withhold records or portions of records." Further, the "state’s highest court [has] asserted time and again that the exceptions to rights of access must be 'narrowly construed.'"  I also note that, without more information, it is not possible for me to ascertain with absolute precision which exemptions pertain to which redactions or documents withheld. I object to the extent the RAO elected not to produce certain unspecified documents at all.   Furthermore, I wholly object to the agency's assertion of 87(2)(d). The RAO's description of why this exemption has been asserted is curt, but I take it to mean that SUNY believes that the disclosure of SUNY Impact Foundation's donors or potential donors would substantially harm the foundation's competitive position vis a vis other similar charities. The idea that SUNY Impact Foundation's competitors, to the extent such entities can be said to exist, once apprised of the identities of certain donors or potential donors courted by the Foundation, might swoop in and steal them is speculative and cannot survive FOIL's broad presumption of access.  I will now further itemize all redactions in the 38 pages of responsive records to which I object:  Page 3 ­  the redactions blocking the "To:" and "Cc:" lines, as well as the one blocking what appears likely to be a first name.   The disclosure of names of people who received a note saying, in effect, "Thanks for your help, and here's a press release," could not reasonably be thought to unwarrantedly violate anyone's privacy.  Page 5 ­ all redactions except for the top, header line.  The final email in this exchange, "Great — I concur, thanks KJ," is either an instruction to staff that affects the public or final agency determination; thus, it was properly disclosed. But the immediately preceding email was redacted in its entirety, leaving us in the dark as to what exactly Kristina Johnson approved. We can infer that it is connected to what is disclosed in an earlier email ("We announce that we raised..."), since this seems in line with what played https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0258276ce1&jsver=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20kellie.dupuis%40suny.edu&qs=true&search=query… 1/2 11/29/2017 Gmail - FOIL Appeal out in public. But to the extent that any redacted sections on this page contain statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructions to staff that affect the public, or final agency policy or determinations, they must be disclosed. Pages 9 and 11 ­ all redactions blocking the "From:" and "To:" lines.   The content of these emails is banal ("Wow!", "Awesome!!!"). There is no indication that these people are donors or potential donors. The RAO shared that information when asserting the exemption.  And if the RAO also intends to apply privacy exemption to the names, too—and if the privacy claim rests on the fact that these individuals are donors or potential donors—it must be noted that the text of the emails do not, perhaps not even via inference, show that these individuals actually are donors, so exemptions related to trade secrets or privacy cannot be credibly asserted. Page 13 ­ all redactions except for the top, header line To the extent that any redacted sections on this page contain statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructions to staff that affect the public, or final agency policy or determinations, they must be disclosed. Pages 33 and 34 ­ all redactions These blocks of redactions do not even leave the time the emails were sent or received—clearly statistical or factual tabulations or data—visible. Joseph Belluck is indeed an attorney, but neither Christine Fitzgibbons nor Kristina Johnson nor SUNY Systems nor SUNY Impact Foundation are his clients, so the contents of these emails are not privileged or confidential. Belluck is a SUNY Impact Foundation board member (and a SUNY trustee).   Again, to the extent that any redacted sections on this page contain statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructions to staff that affect the public, or final agency policy or determinations, they must be disclosed.  Pages 35 and 37 ­ all redactions except the top, header line on page 35  It is unclear why the name of a person expressing interest in receiving contributions from SUNY Impact Foundation for HCC Foundation would be redacted.   Once again, to the extent that any redacted sections on this page contain statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructions to staff that affect the public, or final agency policy or determinations, they must be disclosed. I there believe my FOIL request was wrongly denied. Please release all responsive records.  As required by FOIL, the head or governing body of an agency, or whomever is designated to determine appeals, is required to respond within 10 business days of the receipt of an appeal. If the records are denied on appeal, please explain the reasons for the denial fully in writing as required by law.  In addition, please be advised that FOIL directs that all appeals and the determinations that follow be sent to the Committee on Open Government, Department of State, 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231.  Lastly, I would like to reiterate my request, originally made in an email on Aug. 24 and again on Oct. 5—as yet ignored without explanation—that any and all future FOIL Appeal determinations be sent to me via email rather than snail mail.  Sincerely,  Luke Stoddard Nathan  432 State Street  The Alt c/o Proctors Theater  Schenectady, NY 12305  518­382­3884 ext. 604 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0258276ce1&jsver=CS87NgUoRx4.en.&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20kellie.dupuis%40suny.edu&qs=true&search=query… 2/2 . Slate Universny Plaza New York Albany, New York 12246 November 16, 2017 Luke S. Nathan Staff Writer, The Alt 432 State Street The Alt c/o Proctors Theatre Schenectady, NY 12305 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL: 70150640000411159789 Re: Freedom of Information Law Appeal SUNY System Administration Dear Mr. Nathan: I write in response to your appeal dated November 2, 2017, from the decision of the Records Access Officer of SUNY System Administration on your Freedom of Information Law request dated September 27, 2017, which sought the following records: All correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Kristina M. Johnson from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc., including the foundation?s Strong? fund. All correspondence, including emails and text messages, sent or received by Christine W. Fitzgibbons from August 15, 2017 to the date this request is processed that pertains to SUNY Impact Foundation, Inc. including the foundation?s Strong? fund. On September 28, 2017 the RAO acknowledged your request. On November 2, 2017, the RAO provided 38 pages of responsive records and advised that certain records had been redacted or withheld on the basis ofthe following exemptions under the Public Officers Law: exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege; unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; trade secrets; and intra- and inter-agency materials. This appeal followed. To Learn To Search the Poweror (3J9 To Serve Luke 5. Nathan November 16, 2017 Page 2 On appeal, you argue that you cannot ?ascertain with absolute precision which exemptions pertain to which redactions or documents withheld? and you objected to the action in that regard. However, when an agency exercises a statutory exemption from disclosure, it cannot simultaneously provide the records subject to the exemptions so that FOIL requesters might evaluate their applicability. To do so would effectively bar state agencies from ever asserting any exemption. Had the New York State legislature intended agencies to disclose records in this fashion, it would not have written exemptions into the Public Officers Law. Instead, the law provides for a tiered review, which begins with the agency records access officer and continues with the FOIL Appeals Officer. Finally, your appeal itemized redactions made on nine pages of the responsive records and you objected to each. Upon my investigation and review of the records, conclude that the exemptions from disclosure were properly applied and affirm the decision of the RAO. This appeal is closed. Sincerely, llie l. Dupuis Appeals Officer cc: Casey Vattimo Robert Freeman